A.C. No. 11826 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3801) - ROLANDO N. UY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDMUNDO J. APUHIN.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the IBP-CBD ruled that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed it is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated in that document. [25] Thus, without the personal appearance of the person signing the document, the notary public would have no way of verifying the signature of the acknowledging party and of ascertaining that the document is indeed the party's act or deed. [26] In Atty. Apuhin's case, the IBP-CBD found that he failed to exercise the due diligence required of a good father of a family in not determining the true identity of the persons who allegedly signed the Joint Waiver. [27] The IBP-CBD likewise observed that, having been a practicing lawyer and a notary public for 35 years, Atty. Apuhin should have known and discerned the import of the documents presented before him (i.e., acts involving the alienation of property). [28] Findings of the IBP Board of Governors On January 6, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution in CBD Case No. 13-3801 and adopted and approved with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, viz.: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and Respondent's violation of Rule II Section 12 [29] (1) and (2) and Rule IV Section 2 [30] (b)(1) & (2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Thus, [Atty. Apuhin's] notarial commission, if presently commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. [31] (Additional emphasis supplied and italics in the original) Subsequently, in a Resolution dated January 26, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Apuhin's motion for reconsideration, [32] there being no new reason or argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors. [33] The Court's Ruling After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the Court upholds and adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 13-3801. At the outset, it does not escape the Court's attention that on its face, the Joint Waiver shows that it was allegedly signed and executed by Uy and his wife on July 2, 2006. Mere reference to the record reveals that Uy was in fact in Taiwan as evinced by a Certification [34] from the Bureau of Immigration the day that Atty. Apuhin notarized the Joint Waiver in his office in North Cotabato, Philippines. Suffice it to state that the notarization of a document is vested with substantive public interest. [35] Courts, administra